[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Koehler, 132 Ohio St.3d 465, 2012-Ohio-3235.]

D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v . K OEHLER . [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Koehler,

132 Ohio St.3d 465, 2012-Ohio-3235.] Attorneys—Misconduct—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation and conduct ad versely reflecting on fitness to practice law—Six-month suspension, st ayed on condition of no further
misconduct. (No. 2011-2059—Submitted January 18, 2012—Decided July 19, 2012.)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-054.

__________________ Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} Respondent, Mark William Koehler of Columbus, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0061126, was admitted to the pr actice of law in the state of Ohio in 1993. In June 2011, relator, disciplinar y counsel, filed a complaint charging him with violating Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c) (pr ohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation), (d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice), and (h) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law). On October 24, 2011, disciplinary counsel and Koehler stipulat ed that Koehler violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), (d), and (h). The parties also sti pulated to the facts and to a sanction of a six-month suspension, with the term stayed in its entirety. {¶ 2} A panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline conducted a hearing on the complaint and heard testimony from Koehler. The panel found, and the board agreed, that Koehler violated theS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 aforementioned rules. The panel recomme nded that the stipulated sanction be imposed, and the board adopted the reco mmendation. After reviewing the record, we adopt the recommended sanction and suspend Koehler for six months, all stayed.
Misconduct {¶ 3} Dennis Wilson hired Koehler to proba te his wife’s estate and later hired him to probate his brother’s estate and serve as its administrator. In September 2010, Wilson informed Koehler that an account held in his brother’s name at KeyBank in the amount of $13,736.86 was going to be remitted to unclaimed funds within 30 days. Wilson as ked Koehler to secure these funds and gave Koehler verbal authorization to take any necessary steps to do so. Koehler discovered that the account was payable on death to Wilson, and he therefore was
unable to secure the funds as the adminis trator of Wilson’s brother’s estate. KeyBank informed Koehler that to be ab le to secure the funds, Koehler would
have to obtain authorization from Wilson. {¶ 4} After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain authorization from Wilson, Koehler executed a letter of authorization in Wilson’s name. Koehler took his secretary’s notary stamp and notariz ed the authorization, signing both his secretary’s name and Wilson’s name. Ko ehler presented the authorization to KeyBank and later took possession of a ch eck for the balance in the account. Koehler deposited the check into his c lient trust account, finalized Wilson’s wife’s estate, and sent the re maining amount, $11,311.36, to Wilson. {¶ 5} Koehler’s secretary filed a grievance with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, claiming that Koeh ler had improperly notarized a document by signing her name and using her notary stamp. After an investigation was conducted, the parties stipulated to the descri bed facts. The parties also stipulated
that Koehler’s conduct violated Prof.C ond.R. 8.4(c), (d), and (h). The partiesJanuary Term, 2012

3 agreed to the imposition of a six-month suspension, with the term stayed in its entirety. {¶ 6} The panel recommended approval of the stipulated sanction, and the board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel.
Sanction {¶ 7} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider relevant factors, including the duties that the lawyer violated and the sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli , 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473, 2007- Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. {¶ 8} Mitigating factors found by the board include the absence of a
dishonest or selfish motive and Koehler’s lack of a prior disciplinary record. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (b). While the board found that Koehler maintained a cooperative a ttitude toward the disciplinary proceedings, it found
that Koehler did not seem remorseful. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(d). {¶ 9} On review, we agree with the findings and recommendation of the board. Koehler circumvented, for conven ience, the requirements for notarizing a document and thereby perpetrated a fr aud upon all those who relied on the document he produced. Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke , 81 Ohio St.3d 91, 93- 94, 689 N.E.2d 549 (1998). His actions violated the duty he owed to his client, the public, and the judicial system to ensure the authenticity of the documents
executed at his direction. Disciplinary Counsel v. Roberts , 117 Ohio St.3d 99, 2008-Ohio-505, 881 N.E.2d 1236, ¶ 14. Moreover, by taking his secretary’s notary stamp and signing and notarizing he r name and his client’s name to aS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 document, he engaged in actions that a dversely reflect on the practice of law. See
id

. {¶ 10} Therefore, we suspend Koehler from the practice of law in Ohio for six months. The suspension is stayed on the condition that Koehler commit no
further misconduct. If Koehler violates the terms of the stay, the stay will be lifted and he will serve the entire susp ension. Costs are taxed to Koehler. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary C ounsel, and Carol Costa, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. Mark William Koehler, pro se.

______________________